Small Politics

Three Tolland political events happened on June 11th. Let’s take them in reverse order of importance.

First, Sam Belsito won a decisive victory for the 53rd District State Representative seat. Congratulations to Mr. Belsito and kudos to the Tolland Republicans who waged an energetic and timely campaign on his behalf. (Next time, though, you might want to remember those sign rules. Just sayin'.)

I’m sure the sock-puppet crowd – yes, I mean you, you, you and you… oh, wait, that’s all the same poster... anyway, I’m sure the more vocal crowd is assuming I’m horribly abashed by Tony Horn’s loss. Not in the least. It was the more likely of the two possible outcomes. Mr. Belsito has been granted another eighteen months or so in office at a much more significant level.

I will stand as the person most hoping my words of June 5th are wrong, and that he will prove to be a capable Representative for us. Good luck in Hartford, Mr. Belsito.

***

The second important political event was that the Town Council finally approved sending the library expansion project to public vote in November. It only took four or five council sessions headed by evasive nonsense, a hundred or so Tolland citizens and community groups standing up to declare their support for bringing the matter to a public vote (with not one dissenting voice heard), and a continuing refusal by the public to give in to procedural gamesmanship.

So let’s talk about procedural gamesmanship. Mr. Belsito’s holding up the vote last time to read an irrelevant and erroneous argument was a small example. This Tuesday, he had another distracting pre-vote argument about converting the decaying Parker School into a library instead of expanding the current one, but I am glad to acknowledge that this time he supported his position with a “No” vote on the referendum, and did not abstain. I disagree with his vote, but I respect that he made it.

Abstaining this time was Benjamin Stanford, who also made a pre-vote argument against the referendum that verged on becoming… well, unbecoming would be one word; tantrum might be another. (There’s always the video record if you think I’m being harsh or unfair or unkind or unneighborly or “not nice” here.) Mr. Stanford’s heated argument against the referendum was on the basis that we don’t have a completely worked out capital spending plan and thus can’t spend a dime until we do.

This is the kind of “sensible extremism” I referred to last time, which coming after one of Sam Belsito’s off-the-wall arguments almost sounds reasonable. It’s not. Nor was Mr. Stanford’s argument of two council sessions ago, repeated last night, of pushing the referendum vote off until August… for reasons that were vague but had something to do with “more study” on the topic.

Now… this topic has been in the rounds for some twenty-five years. The project has been on the books for ten years. A complete design and usage study was done and presented last year. And to say there is overwhelming and unanimous public – citizen – taxpayer! – demand to move forward on it is an understatement. But Mr. Belsito and Mr. Stanford, knowing the straight-up fight was lost, chose to use procedural gamesmanship to try and force an effective vote of “No” on the matter while repeatedly assuring the audience that they were completely, and they mean completely, in favor of the library.

Mr. Belsito’s arguments have been that there are horrible unresolved problems – with the parking, with the mysterious “library of the future” and with the million-dollar problem of the crumbling Parker School. Mr. Stanford’s arguments have been, basically, that we can’t be allowed to vote on this… yet. We have to wait for a perfected capital expenditure plan (a complete if perhaps imperfect one we have, by the way)… which shouldn’t take more than two or three more Town Council administrations, should it, Benjamin? And pushing off the vote (just on allowing the referendum, and thus allowing us to vote) until August – when almost no one is here to show up at council meetings and a “No” vote would keep it off November’s ballot, without recourse, that’s entirely sensible. Sure.

All I can say over this maneuvering and using procedure and process to obtain by subterfuge and delay what you can’t obtain in an open vote is… Just how stupid do you think we are, Mr. Stanford? You made it quite clear that you felt the citizen – voter – taxpayer! – demand to bring this matter to referendum was “pressure” and improper and ignorant on our parts (things which Mr. Belsito has also said). If you think so little of the town citizens you purportedly represent (not a one who stood up to agree with you in three or four sessions), if you think we’re not smart enough or informed enough or “polite” enough to wait out your maneuvering to maintain your “no spending” ideology over even the strongest public outcry – and, Mr. Stanford, if you think a little criticism of your shoddy actions is rude and impolite and mean – then maybe you should look for another job in November, one where citizen-voter-taxpayer “pressure” doesn’t mess up your nice ideological planning and you can keep your maneuvering private.

The Republicans get to appoint a replacement for Sam Belsito, and word on the wind is that they’re going to choose a moderate. That would restore some sense and sensibility to proceedings until November’s clean-up. My impression is that Mr. Scavone and Mr. Gill are just as embarrassed by the ideological tilting (as in “at windmills”) as the rest of us. Choose well, gentlemen.

***

The third political event of significance on June 11th was that 1,818 Tolland voters showed up to vote on the 53rd District race. To no one’s surprise, I’m sure, that represents less than 19% of the eligible voters. I wonder what part of that dismal turnout has to do with 50% of us being unrepresented? Time on this election was so absurdly short that even the two party candidates had to scramble to make their calls and mailings; with the additional hurdles an independent or unaffiliated candidate faces, there was no real option for additional qualified candidates to run.

It’s way past time for the unaffiliated voters of Tolland to make their muscle felt. Our pool of those qualified and willing to serve is small enough without ignoring half of it. (Or more; I can only feel that there would be a higher proportion of qualified folks among those who dismiss party politics.) It’s time for qualified individuals who aren’t a D or an R to stand up and take positions on the Town Council, the Board of Education and the other elected boards. It’s time to put some real sense back in these bodies, which are of zero interest to anyone except the 15,000 of us who live here and the 9,600 of us who theoretically vote. It’s time to purge the partisan deadlock and dead-end ideology that passes for political representation, so that we can move forward as a town and a community.

***

Let’s hear from any of the 4,700 active, unaffiliated Tolland voters who aren't me. Did you turn out for Tuesday’s vote? Why or why not? Will you support the library expansion in November? Why or why not? Would you consider running for town office as an unaffiliated candidate? Why or why not?